Water sustainability in packaging means measuring local risk, not just using less water
What water sustainability means for packaging
Water sustainability in packaging means using water in a way that protects product quality, local communities, ecosystems and long-term supply reliability. For packaging teams, the issue is not simply how many gallons a plant uses. Performance also depends on where the water is withdrawn, whether it is returned at a quality the watershed can support, and whether the package design creates avoidable demand for water-intensive raw materials, washing, converting or waste management.
Packaging sits inside a wider manufacturing and distribution system. A paperboard carton, molded pulp insert, plastic pouch, glass jar, metal can or corrugated shipper can have very different water impacts at the raw material, production, use and recovery stages. A credible water sustainability strategy therefore needs measurement, supplier questions, design discipline and local risk analysis, rather than a broad claim that one material is always better.
Why water risk is now a packaging issue
Water stress is local, while packaging supply chains are global. In its Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas update of August 16, 2023, the World Resources Institute reported that 25 countries, representing about one-quarter of the global population, face extremely high water stress each year. WRI defines extremely high water stress as using at least 80% of available renewable water supply; high water stress begins at 40%. It also reported that around 4 billion people live under highly water-stressed conditions for at least one month each year.
These are not packaging-specific statistics, but they explain why packaging buyers are asking more water-related questions. Packaging materials rely on forestry, agriculture, petrochemicals, mining, pulp and paper, converting, printing, adhesives, washing, cooling, wastewater treatment and transport. If any of these steps occur in a water-stressed basin, a relatively small change in demand, drought conditions or regulation can create cost, compliance or supply disruption.
CDP, the environmental disclosure platform, added a business perspective in a September 17, 2025 release. It said companies reporting through CDP identified US$339 billion in potential financial impacts linked to water-related risks, while only 21% of water-disclosing companies engaged suppliers on water issues. That gap is important for packaging because many water impacts sit upstream, especially in fiber sourcing, resin production, additives, inks and co-pack manufacturing.
For more coverage of packaging materials and environmental trends, explore the Sustainability section.
Water footprint is not the same as water stewardship
A water footprint and water stewardship are related, but they are not interchangeable. ISO 14046:2014 describes principles, requirements and guidelines for assessing the water footprint of products, processes and organizations using a life cycle assessment approach. In practice, this helps teams understand where water-related impacts occur across a product system, not only inside one factory.
Water stewardship adds local catchment context. The Alliance for Water Stewardship describes its standard as a site and catchment-based framework for major water users to understand water use and impacts, work with stakeholders and support sustainable water management. AWS Standard Version 3.0 was launched in March 2026, with a transition period for certification use. Its framing is useful for packaging even when a company is not pursuing certification because it asks a more complete question: is the site’s water use socially equitable, environmentally sustainable and economically beneficial in its actual watershed?
This distinction matters for claims and procurement decisions. A package may have a lower measured water footprint in one scenario but still raise concerns if the production site is in a highly stressed basin or if wastewater treatment is weak. Conversely, a water-intensive process may be better managed if it reuses water, treats discharge properly and operates in a basin with lower stress and strong governance. Sound decisions need both product-level data and location-level context.
Where packaging decisions affect water
Raw materials and material production
Raw material choice is often the largest water question. Fiber-based packaging depends on forestry, pulping and papermaking. According to the American Forest & Paper Association 2025 sustainability progress report, member pulp and paper mills reduced water usage by 8.5% from 2005 to 2022, and water can be reused 10 times or more in the papermaking process. AF&PA also reported that 88% of water used for production of forest products is treated in wastewater systems and returned to the environment. Because this is industry-reported data, it is useful context, not a universal result for every mill or region.
Plastic packaging has different water pathways. It may use less process water in some converting steps, but its upstream footprint can include petrochemical production, cooling water, additives, pellet washing and wastewater controls. Metal and glass packaging can involve mining, smelting or high-temperature processes where cooling, cleaning and the energy-water link become relevant. Material labels alone do not provide enough information.
Converting, printing and finishing
Water use does not stop when the substrate is made. Printing, coating, lamination, adhesive application, dyeing, mold cleaning and equipment washdown can all affect water demand and wastewater quality. Water-based inks and coatings may reduce some solvent-related concerns, but they still require attention to formulation, drying energy, washwater and effluent controls. A change that improves air emissions should still be checked for water and energy trade-offs.
Packaging teams should ask suppliers about withdrawal sources, water intensity, reuse systems, wastewater treatment, chemical oxygen demand, restricted substances in inks or coatings, and whether the facility has completed basin-level risk screening. The most useful answers are tied to the production site, not only to a corporate sustainability statement.
Distribution, use and recovery
Packaging design also influences water after manufacturing. Reusable systems can reduce material demand, but washing and logistics can add water and energy loads. Compostable or recyclable formats may support waste reduction, but contamination can increase sorting or washing burdens. Labels, adhesives, sleeves and multilayer structures can affect whether a package is practically recovered, which changes the need for virgin material and the upstream water connected to it.
The U.S. EPA estimated that paper and paperboard packaging had an 80.9% recycling rate in 2018, while plastic containers and packaging had an overall recycling rate of 13.6% in the same data set. These figures do not measure water directly, and they are U.S.-specific, but they show why end-of-life design remains part of water sustainability. Keeping materials in use can reduce the need for new raw material production, but the benefit depends on collection systems, contamination levels and reprocessing impacts.
A practical evaluation framework for packaging teams
Water sustainability becomes more useful when it is translated into buying and design decisions. The following framework can help teams compare options without oversimplifying the issue. See also: BOX DESIGN.
| Decision area | Water question to ask | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Material selection | Where are the main water withdrawals and quality impacts across the life cycle? | Different materials shift water impacts between raw material, production, use and recovery stages. |
| Supplier location | Is the production site in a high-stress catchment or drought-prone region? | The same water volume can have different consequences depending on local scarcity and governance. |
| Process controls | Does the supplier reuse process water and treat wastewater before discharge? | Water efficiency without water quality management is incomplete. |
| Design efficiency | Can the package be right-sized, lightweighted or simplified without increasing damage? | Reducing unnecessary material can reduce upstream water demand and waste. |
| Reuse or refill | How much washing, transport and reverse logistics are required? | Reusable systems need operational data to prove environmental value. |
| Recovery | Does the format work with available recycling or composting infrastructure? | Practical recovery can reduce virgin material demand, but only where systems exist. |
EPA sustainable materials management guidance lists packaging source reduction examples such as lightweighting, right-size packaging, eliminating unnecessary layers, and using refillable or reusable containers. For water sustainability, these steps are strongest when they also protect the product. A lighter package that increases breakage, spoilage or returns may create more total environmental burden than it removes.
Common trade-offs to avoid
The first trade-off is treating recycled content as an automatic water solution. Recycled content can reduce demand for virgin materials, but recycling systems still require sorting, cleaning, reprocessing and quality control. The water result depends on material type, contamination, local infrastructure and the quality required for the next application.
The second trade-off is assuming that paper is always water-intensive and plastic is always water-efficient, or the reverse. Both statements are too broad. A responsibly managed paper mill with water reuse and strong wastewater treatment may perform differently from a poorly controlled site. A plastic package that reduces weight and food waste may provide value in one use case, while a difficult-to-recycle multilayer format may create problems in another.
The third trade-off is focusing on factory water use while ignoring product loss. Packaging protects goods, and damaged products often carry a much larger water footprint than the package itself, especially for food, beverages, cosmetics and other water-dependent products. Right-size packaging is important, but under-packaging can be a hidden water risk if it increases spoilage or returns.
What better water sustainability practice looks like
Good practice starts with a short list of measurable actions. Packaging teams should map priority materials and suppliers, identify production sites in water-stressed basins, request site-specific water data, and compare design alternatives with a life cycle view. They should also separate water withdrawal from water consumption and water quality. A facility may withdraw a large amount of water but return much of it after treatment; another may withdraw less but consume more or discharge higher pollutant loads.
Supplier engagement should move beyond questionnaires. Useful discussions cover water meters, closed-loop reuse systems, wastewater treatment capability, local permit compliance, basin risk tools, emergency drought plans, and whether the supplier collaborates with other local water users. Where water is a critical risk, buyers can include water performance indicators in supplier scorecards and contracts. CDP’s 2025 data suggests this is still uncommon, which means stronger water engagement can become a practical resilience measure rather than only a reporting exercise.
Claims should be conservative. Phrases such as water conscious, designed to reduce material use, or assessed for water risk are safer when supported by evidence. Claims such as water neutral or water positive require especially strong boundaries, accounting methods and independent verification. Without those details, broad water claims can confuse readers and increase greenwashing risk.
Frequently asked questions
Is water sustainability only relevant to paper packaging?
No. Paper and paperboard make water use visible because pulping and papermaking require process water, but plastics, glass, metals, coatings, inks, adhesives and washing systems can also create water impacts. The relevant question is where water is used, consumed, polluted or stressed across the full life cycle.
Does recyclable packaging automatically improve water sustainability?
Not automatically. Recyclability can reduce demand for virgin materials when collection and reprocessing systems work well. However, the water benefit depends on contamination, washing needs, reprocessing technology and whether the recycled output displaces virgin production.
What is the most useful first step for a packaging buyer?
Start by identifying the highest-volume materials and the supplier sites that produce them. Then screen those locations for water stress and ask for site-specific data on withdrawals, consumption, reuse and wastewater treatment. This is more actionable than comparing materials with broad assumptions.
How should companies talk about water sustainability without overclaiming?
Use specific language. Instead of saying a package is water sustainable, describe the evidence: reduced material weight, supplier water reuse, verified wastewater treatment, basin-risk screening, or a life cycle water assessment. Specific claims are easier to verify and more useful to buyers.
The bottom line
Water sustainability in packaging is a design, sourcing and risk-management issue. The strongest decisions combine material efficiency, product protection, supplier transparency, local watershed context and credible measurement. No single material or claim can solve the issue by itself. Packaging teams that ask better water questions can reduce avoidable risk, support more resilient supply chains and make sustainability communication more accurate.
